DEVIL WORSHIP
Satanist Apologetics
By Geifodd ap Pwyll

This article is copyrighted © 2006 Geifodd ap Pwyll.

The word "apologetics" is derived from the ancient Greek word apologia, which means, "an apology." It does not mean "an apology" in the modern sense of the word (e.g., "I'm sorry"). Rather, it means "an apology" in the ancient sense of the word -- which is to make a reasoned defense of something or someone. In ancient times, the word apology referred to the case a lawyer would make on behalf of his client.

The term "apologetics" is most often used in the context of Christianity. Christian apologetics, essentially, is the defense of the Christian faith in the "marketplace of ideas." Specifically, the point to Christian apologetics is to train an individual Christian in responding to questions and/or attacks made against their faith. Christian apologists are taught to view such situations -- i.e., when they are questioned or attacked -- as opportunities to share the "Truth."

I would like to propose the idea of Satanist apologetics. That is, I propose the idea of determining a systematic method of making reasoned defenses of Satanism in the "marketplace of ideas." However, there would be a very strong difference between Satanic apologetics and Christian apologetics. The ultimate motive behind Christian apologetics is to spread the faith by making convincing arguments that would seem to neutralize competing ideologies. In my view, the ultimate motive behind Satanist apologetics should NOT be to spread the faith, but rather simply to defend it -- just as the word "apologia" indicates. We would not be attempting to convince people that Satanism is the correct religion, or that Christianity and other religions are "incorrect." Our point in practicing Satanist apologetics would be simply to address various claims that are made about our religion -- such as the babykiller myths --and point out the illogical bases for these claims by preventing evidence to the contrary.

In the past I have made observations of what usually happens when Satanists speak with Christians. What usually seems to happen is this: the Satanist, feeling angered and resentful due to pre-existing Christian biases against Satanism, essentially structures his/her arguments against the Christians as attacks on their faith. More often than not, the attacks become personal, sprinkled with all manner of personal insults and blasphemous statements. Of course it is only natural that a Satanist would want to make blasphemous statements, but such is actually detrimental for all of us in general. All that it does is make us look like a bunch of angry kids. When a Satanist approaches his/her Christian opponents in such a manner, he/she really does NOTHING to combat the pre-existing Christian biases that he/she feels resentful toward. All he/she does is FEED the pre-existing biases, making the situation worse for Satanists.

In recent months I have spent a great deal of time conversing with Christians, and I have elected to employ a different methodology in formulating arguments against their claims. I have observed that the situation will, more often than not, be automatically improved if the Satanist in question walks into the situation with (1) a friendly and polite attitude, and (2) a willingness to refrain from using personal insults and/or blasphemous language. When a Satanist enters into a debate with one or more Christians, it is extremely important that the Satanist go out of their way to remain cool, rational, and respectful at all times. EVEN when the Christians do not reciprocate this attitude.

Satanists typically think in terms of "Do unto others as they do unto you." Which would suggest that when a Christian is mean to you in a debate, you are automatically obliged to reciprocate their nastiness. This simply does NOT work. All that it does is pour more gasoline into the fire. A much better strategy is for the Satanist to continue asserting themselves politely and respectfully, no matter how much nastiness they are subjected to. The reason why? It is certainly NOT to "turn the other cheek." The reason why is because OTHER people who may be overhearing the conversation, or reading it in a forum, will tend to side with the person who is behaving most rationally. If the Satanist gives in to the nastiness coming from the other side, this only makes it look to third-party observers like everything that is generally believed about Satanists is actually true. If the Satanist remains respectful, even when his/her respect is not reciprocated, any third-party observers will likely notice that the Satanist is behaving more rationally than his Christian opponent(s). And by doing this, the Satanist helps to improve the image of Satanism in people's minds considerably.

Another important point is that the Satanist needs to make it abundantly clear to his/her opponents that he/she is NOT trying to "convert" them. If you get into an argument with a Christian opponent, the best thing is to tell them, upfront, that you respect their right to their belief. Tell them that they have a fundamental right to believe as they do, and that you have no problem with them exercising that fundamental right. Tell them that your purpose in discussing Satanism with them is NOT to somehow "prove" that Satanism is right and Christianity is wrong. Make it specifically clear to them that your purpose is ONLY to debunk the common myths about Satanism. The point is not to make them agree with your religious beliefs, and it will be necessary for you to make this clear to them (you should probably get used to having to repeat yourself). The point is simply to prove to them that, as ridiculous as they might find our religious beliefs to be, we are human beings just like them, and we deserve to be treated and thought of as such. Trust me, if you make this clear to a Christian that you are having an argument with, and you make it clear to them RESPECTFULLY, your debate with them will be much more successful than it would be otherwise.

Another thing: refrain from making any theological assertations. In many discussions with Christians I have had to describe my belief system to them, and indeed I have done this. But in doing this, I have managed to refrain from asserting my beliefs as objective facts. I have been extremely careful in voicing my beliefs as being my own subjective opinions. Of course, to me they are NOT subjective opinions -- but as with persons of all other religions, there is very little objective evidence with which I can defend my beliefs. Therefore, I have found that it is best to avoid asserting beliefs as objective facts. Refraining from doing this protects you from having to prove any assertations. When a person makes an assertation, the burden of proof is automatically placed upon THEIR shoulders. In acting as a Satanist apologist, it is highly important that you do not allow the burden of proof to be placed on your shoulders, and you can avoid this by preventing yourself from making any theological assertations during the discussion. (This is not to say that you shouldn't make any assertations at all -- obviously it is a good idea to assert that Satanists are generally law-abiding citizens, but this can be easily proven. You have only to direct them to such resources as The Satanic Bible, the Temple of Set's General Information and Admissions Policy letter, and James Lewis' "Satanism Today.") Remember, the point to Satanic apologetics is NOT to argue over theological beliefs, but simply to argue against the supposed criminal deviancy of Satanists.

A good thing about voicing your beliefs as subjective opinions is that, if an opponent demands that you "prove" to them that your beliefs are true, you can point out to them that you never asserted your beliefs as objective facts in the first place. Therefore, the burden of proof is not on your shoulders. If, and ONLY if, your opponent argues that Christianity has a stronger basis due to having Biblical evidence on its side, then you can demand that THEY present you with proof of THEIR assertations. You can quite easily counter such an argument by pointing out that there is no objective evidence to prove that the Bible presents a completely factual account of spiritual reality, and that the very bedrock of Christianity -- and indeed of any theistic religion -- is faith. You can then point out that your opponent is choosing to put their faith in what essentially amounts to just another subjective opinion. If your opponent argues that you do the same thing -- that all you have is your faith and your subjective opinions -- then you can easily say, "That makes us even."

Devil Worship